It's interesting, at first I dismissed the idea of these C3PO NAP's as an overzealous and overly worded attempt by some to force others to play by their rules.
But after reading Dragar's recent post on the topic, particularly his point that 90% of the conditions are what most players would consider fair anyway, has made me realise that perhaps such treaties could have a place in the game.
I think the usefulness of further discussion is now limited and the time has come for practical testing!
I predict one of three scenarios will be common:
1. Player A offers a C3PO NAP and Player B refuses (for whatever reason). Player A or B may then propose a 'standard' NAP, and the same basic unease Player A has with 'standard' NAP's will remain.
Nothing has changed.
2. Player A offers a C3PO NAP and Player B accepts (perhaps to avoid any unpleasantness in future dealings with Player A). However, Player B hasn't felt the need to thoroughly read all the terms of the C3PO NAP. As a result a future argument breaks out between Players A and B when one or more terms are breached by Player B. Player A will cite the treaty term\s in question (perhaps a little loftily), while Player B will feel angered and hassled by a treaty they didn't fully understand. Player B will either grumble and comply or will bellow war cries and attack, feeling they have been unjustly done by. Player A will also feel unjustly done by, and will also lack any higher authority to complain to. Forum flaming may result.
Nothing has changed.
3. Player A proposes a C3PO NAP and Player B accepts. Player B is the type of player who would honour an NAP anyway, and likely already agrees with most of the provisions laid out in the thread detailing the C3PO's terms. They will probably read the thread before agreeing to the C3PO.
Nothing has changed.
I'm sure some will disagree with my depiction of the above three scenarios. Go ahead
Until we get some feedback from actual games it's only discussion.
And hey, it may not make such a difference anyway!